Demographic characteristics of northern spotted owls in the Eastern ...

1
WILDLIFE ECOLOGY TEAM
WILDLIFE HABITAT
RELATIONSHIPS
IN WASHINGTON AND OREGON
FISCAL YEAR 2012.
October, 2012
Study
Demography of Spotted Owls on the east slope of the
Cascade Range, Washington, 1989-2012
Researchers
Dr. E.D. Forsman (PI). Lead Biologist: S. Sovern, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oregon. Biologists M. Taylor, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon; Joan StHilaire
and Dale Phipps, USDA Forest Service. Cooperators: Plum Creek Timber Company,
Boise Cascade Corporation, American Forest Resources L.L.C., Washington State
Department of Natural Resources.
Status
This study is one of eight long-term demographic studies in the Regional Monitoring
Program for the Northern Spotted Owl (Lint et al. 1999). The study was initiated in 1989.
Study objectives
Determine demographic trends of Spotted Owls on the east slope of the Cascade
Range in Washington, to include age-and-sex-specific survival rates, reproductive rates,
and overall population trend.
Potential benefit of the study
This study was designed to collect long-term information on survival and reproductive
rates of Spotted Owls on the east slope of the Cascade Mountains in Washington. This
information is needed to assess the status of the owl population in this province. In
combination with data from other study areas in Washington and Oregon, information
from the Cle Elum Study Area is used to assess region-wide trends in the Spotted Owl
population (Forsman et al. 1996, Franklin et al. 1999, Lint et al. 1999, Anthony et al.,
2006, Forsman et al. 2011).

2
Study Area and Methods
The Cle Elum Study Area includes a 1,787 km 2 General Study Area (GSA), and a 204
km 2 Density Study Area (DSA) that is contained within the GSA (Figure 1). The U. S.
Forest Service administers approximately 60% of the area within the GSA. The GSA
and DSA are composed of 34 % and 88 % designated Late Successional Reserves
(LSR), respectively. These LSR’s were allocated by the Northwest Forest Plan to
benefit species associated with late successional forest (USDA and USDI 1994).
Figure 1. The Cle Elum Study Area, Washington.
Within the GSA we survey all historic owl territories each
year using standard protocols to locate and confirm
previously banded owls, and to determine the number of
young produced at each territory (Forsman 1983,
Franklin, et al., 1996, Lint et al., 1999). Any new owls are
banded with a numbered USFWS band and a uniquely
colored plastic leg band (Figure 2). We attempted a
complete count of Spotted Owls in the DSA each year
beginning in 1991. The DSA survey involves reproducing
Figure 2. Adult Spotted owl
with yellow and black leg band

Spotted Owl calls at each established call station on 3 occasions during the March –
August field season (Forsman 1983, Lint et al. 1999, Reid et al. 1999). Call stations are
positioned so that we achieve a 100 % auditory coverage of the entire DSA.
In 2005 and 2006, we collected blood samples and oral swabs from most owls we
captured to test for the presence of West Nile Virus. West Nile Virus has been identified
as a potentially significant source of mortality among Spotted Owls (Courtney et al.
2004). We collected blood samples from some captured owls for future genetic study
2006-2010 (Haig et al. 2004, Funk et al. 2009).
In January, 2009, we participated in a meta-analysis of Northern Spotted Owl data in
Corvallis, Oregon. The meta-analysis included data from 8 monitoring areas funded
through the Northwest Forest Plan, plus 3 additional study areas in the range of the
Northern Spotted Owl. In the meta-analysis we used mark-recapture data to estimate
age-and sex-specific survival and recruitment, and population growth rate. The results
of the meta-analysis are presented in Forsman et al. (2011).
3
RESULTS
Population Trends
General Study Area
In 2012 we banded 7 juvenile owls and, bringing the total number of owls banded during
1989-2012 to 844 (69 subadults, 157 adults, and 617 juveniles, Table 1).
Our monitoring effort has remained relatively consistent after 1992, except for 8-10
territories we began monitoring with only 1 visit per year beginning in 2002. None of
these “minimum-protocol” territories contained owls in 2012. In 2012, we confirmed the
bands of 13 spotted, and detected another 7 Spotted Owls on 13 territories. This
compares to a high of 120 owls on 64 territories in the same area in 1992 (Figure 3,
Table 2).
We have noted an 83 % decline in the number of owls detected on the study area since
1992, and a concomitant increase in the number of vacant territories (Figure 4). The
high male:female ratio observed in 2008-2010 appears to have waned in the last 2
years. (Figure 5).
Although the number of owls detected on the GSA this year was 1 less than we
detected last year, we are encouraged by the fact that 2 territorial owls that appear to
have died over the winter were replaced by new owls. The fact that there are a few
non-territorial “floaters” within or near the study area is encouraging. We were unable to
capture these owls to determine where they originated.
Key findings of the most recent meta-analysis of Spotted Owl demography data
(Forsman et al. 2011) were: 1) there was strong evidence of population declines in

spotted owls on 7 of 11 study areas examined (including the Cle Elum Study Area); and
2) Barred owl presence had a generally negative effect on demographic rates of spotted
owls. The estimate of the finite rate of population change (λ) for the Cle Elum Study
Area was 0.937 (95% CI 0.91 – 0.96), indicating an annual population decline of 6.3%
(95% CI 4-9%). This estimate of population change closely predicts the empirical
estimates of population size that we collect each year (Figure 3).
4
Figure 3. Number of Spotted Owls detected, number of territories in which we detected
owls, number of territories surveyed, and number of new territories added by year on
the Cle Elum Study Area, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Washington, 1989-
2012. Minimum protocol territories included 8-10 territories that we visited only once per
year beginning in 2002. A territory was considered inhabited if a single owl response
was detected which was not associated with a neighboring territory.

Figure 4. Number of vacant territories, hybrid territories, and number of territories
inhabited by singles, pairs, and “additional owls” on the Cle Elum Study Area,
Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Washington, 1989-2011. An “additional owl” is
counted when a single owl is detected at a territory where a pair or territorial owl has
already been confirmed, and the single owl response cannot be attributed to an
adjacent territory. A hybrid territory is one inhabited by a Spotted owl/Barred owl pair or
a hybrid owl (spotted owl x barred owl). Totals do not include 8-10 vacant sites where
we made less than 3 complete visits in a year starting in 2002.
5

6
Figure 5. Number of male and female Spotted Owls detected by year on the Cle Elum
Study Area, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Washington, 1989-2012.
Elsewhere on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, we continued banding owls
on a portion of what was the Wenatchee Demography Study Area (WEN, Figure 12).
The WEN was monitored by National Council for Air and Stream Improvement from
1990-2003, in cooperation with the Wenatchee National Forest. We banded 3 new owls
at 10 inhabited territories on the WEN, and changed bands or confirmed bands on 3
adult owls. We surveyed 23 territories to protocol.

7
Density Study Area
The DSA survey data indicate an overall decline in the number of owls detected in the
DSA since 1991 (Figure 6). We detected the same number of owls this year in the DSA
as 20112012. However, the number of confirmed pairs in the DSA dropped from 2 to 1.
Figure 6. Number of non-juvenile Spotted Owls detected on the 204 km 2 Swauk Density
Study Area on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Washington, 1991-2012.
Points represent actual counts.
West Nile Virus
None of the oral swab or blood samples from owls tested positive for the presence of
West Nile Virus. Samples from 3 mosquitoes collected in neighboring Yakima County
January 1 through September 15, 2011 tested positive for West Nile Virus (CDC 2011).
West Nile Virus was detected in 2 each birds, horses, and mosquitoes from Kittitas
County in 2009, but no specimens tested positive in 2011. The impact of West Nile
Virus on the Spotted Owl population on the Cle Elum Study Area remains unknown.

8
Barred owls and Spotted Owls
The range of the Barred Owl now overlaps
the range of the Northern Spotted Owl,
and the potential for the Barred Owl to
negatively affect the Spotted Owl
population has been a concern for many
years (Taylor and Forsman 1976,
Courtney et al. 2006). Kelly et al. (2003)
found that apparent occupancy and
reproduction of Spotted Owls were lower
when Barred owls were detected nearby.
Thus, monitoring the number of inhabited
Barred Owl territories is an important
index to measure the effect of Barred owls
on Spotted Owl population trends (Olson
et al. 2005)
General Study Area
Barred Owl (Strix varia) (photo by
Steve Sleep)
We recorded 39 Barred Owl responses in the GSA in 2012 during our Spotted Owl
surveys. Based on how these responses were situated temporally and/or
geographically, we believe the responses represent 28 Barred Owl territories. Due to
limited resources, we did not attempt to determine whether the responses represented
nesting pairs.
To estimate the proportion of Spotted Owl territories that are inhabited by Barred Owls
each year in the GSA, we assigned a center location to each Spotted Owl territory that
we surveyed each year. We used data from 56 territories that were surveyed
consistently during 1992-2012, and that were inhabited by a pair of Spotted Owls at
least one year during that period. We coded the territory as having a Barred Owl
response if a Barred Owl responded within 1 km of any of the historic territory centers.
We felt this measure of the Barred Owl effect would capture instances where the Barred
Owls were displacing Spotted Owls > 1 km between years. The proportion of Spotted
Owl territories in the GSA with Barred Owl responses increased from 1992-2002, after
which time the proportion has varied among years but not increased above the 2002
level (Figure 7).

9
Figure 7. Percent of Spotted Owl territories with a Barred Owl response within 1 km of
any of the historic territory centers, Cle Elum Study Area, Okanogan-Wenatchee
National Forest, Washington, 1991-2012. The sample includes 56 territories that were
continuously surveyed for Spotted Owls 1992-2012, and were inhabited by a pair of
spotted owls at least one year.
Density Study Area
By completely surveying the Density Study Area each year, we were able to estimate
which portions of the DSA were inhabited by Barred Owls and which portions were
inhabited by Spotted Owls. The apparent number of inhabited Barred Owl territories in
the DSA increased in 1991-2000 (Figure 8), outnumbering inhabited Spotted Owl
territories in several years. This year, we detected the highest number Barred Owls
since 1991--barred owl territories outnumbered spotted owl territories by a ratio of more
than 6:1 (Figure 8).

10
Figure 8. Number of territories in which we detected Spotted Owls and Barred Owls in
the Swauk Cr. Density Study Area, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Washington,
1991-2012.Territories were considered inhabited if an owl of either sex was detected at
the territory. The values for barred owls in 2009 include one territory inhabited by a
Spotted owl/Barred owl pair.
Although we have detected Barred owls on the General Study Area
since 1989, we documented our first case of a Spotted owl/Barred
owl pair in 2009. The pair included a male Spotted owl and a female
Barred owl—the most common pair formation when Spotted Owls
and Barred owls hybridize (Haig et al. 2004, Kelly et al. 2004). The
pair nested and produced 2 young. One of those young was verified
at an historic spotted owl territory in 2011.
In December, 2009, the US Fish and Wildlife Service published a
notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for a Barred Owl removal study (USFWS 2009). This study, if
initiated, will evaluate the effect of Barred Owl removal on vital rates
(e.g. survival, reproduction, recruitment) of the Spotted Owl. The
public comment period on the letter of intent has ended and the
USFWS is currently drafting an EIS. The Cle Elum Study Area will
likely be a candidate study area for experimental Barred Owl removal under this
proposal. More information can be found at the following link: Barred owl EIS .
“Sparred” owl (Spotted owl x Barred
owl hybrid) fledgling, 22 July, 2009

11
Reproductive Rates
All of the 4 females for which we determined
nesting status in 2012 nested and all nests
produced young. Average fecundity (number
of female young produced per female owl) was
0.58 (SE = 0.15, Table 3). The 2012 values for
proportion of females nesting and fecundity
were above the average for all years (Figure 9,
Table 4).
The pronounced odd-even year pattern of
nesting and fecundity seen in 1989-1999—a
pattern that was evident in many studies
throughout the range of the Spotted Owl--has
waned somewhat in the last 12 years (Figure
9, Table 3-4).
Forsman et al. (2011) found that models that
included a time trend covariate were among
the competing models for fecundity on the Cle Elum Study area. The 95% confidence
intervals around the negative beta estimate (-0.005) for trend in fecundity barely
overlapped zero (-0.017 – 0.006, Forsman et al. 2011:25). Thus, these estimates
provide suggestive evidence that fecundity has declined over time on this study area.

12
Figure 9. Reproductive indices of Northern Spotted Owls on the Cle Elum Study Area,
Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Washington, 1989-2012. Indices shown are:
proportion of females nesting and fecundity. Sample size of females used for fecundity
analysis for each year (bars) is plotted on the y axis on the right side of the graph.
Fecundity is the number of females produced per female owl, assuming a 50:50 sex
ratio. The dotted and dashed lines show the average (all years 1989-2012) fecundity
and proportion nesting, respectively.
During 1989-2012 there were 2 years (1993, 1997) with extremely low reproduction.
While the reproductive rates appear to have been somewhat less variable in recent
years, most reproductive indices we measure are proportions that apply to a declining
pool of reproductive owls. Thus, the reproductive potential of the Spotted owl
population on the Cle Elum Study Area has declined over time (Figure 10). The small
number of reproductive females remaining on the study area is cause for concern
should this situation persist, given recent analyses that suggest there is a genetic
bottleneck in this region (Funk et al. 2009). Additionally, small populations can have a
depressed capacity to withstand environmental variation (Soule and Mills’ 1998).

13
Figure 10. Hypothesized annual female reproductive output (average yearly female
fecundity * number of females detected each year), Cle Elum Study Area, Okanogan-
Wenatchee National Forest, Washington, 1989-2012. Note in the years prior to 1992
the sample of females monitored each year was increasing as we added new territories
to the sample.
Western Spruce Budworm
An outbreak of the western spruce budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis) began on the
Cle Elum Study Area in 2000, and the amount of area affected by the budworm has
increased each year (WDNR 2011). Aerial reconnaissance by WDNR 2000-2011
indicates that as much as 48 % of the GSA has been affected by the budworm at some
point since 2000 (figure 11). Defoliation by the budworm has the potential to reduce
Spotted Owl habitat quality by decreasing canopy closure. Stands that are dominated
by Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menzesii) and grand fir (Abies grandis) are particularly
susceptible to defoliation.

14
Figure 11. Cumulative area (hectares) of forest affected by western spruce budworm by
year on the Cle Elum Study Area, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Washington,
2000-2011 (WDNR 2011).
Table Mountain Fire
A severe lightning storm on September 8, 2012 ignited 55 fires within the GSA. Sixteen
of these fires were within 0.7 mi (1.1 km) of the historic territory center of one or more of
our owls. Several of these fires increased in size and combined into one fire, the Table
Mountain fire (Figure 12-14). When the fire was contained, 16,743 ha of the GSA and
3842 ha of the DSA were within the fire perimeter. No spotted owl territories that were
inhabited in 2012 were threatened by the Table Mountain fire. However, 38 historic
territory centers from 8 territories were within the fire perimeter.

15
Figure 12. Looking NE toward the Table Mtn. fire, September 19, 2012, ~ 1500 hours
Figure 13. Looking E at The Table Mtn. Fire September 19, 2012, ~ sunset

Figure 14. Aerial photography (ca. 2009) with the Cle Elum Study Area boundary and
Table Mountain Fire perimeter, 2 October, 2012.
16
The 2009 Spotted Owl Demographic Workshop
A workshop to analyze data from Spotted Owl demography study areas was conducted
in January 2009, and the results from the analysis were published in the monograph
Population Demography of Northern Spotted Owls (Forsman et al. 2011). This analysis
included data from 11 study areas, including the Cle Elum Study Area 1989-2008, as
well as 7 other Spotted Owl demography study areas funded under the Northwest
Forest Plan (Figure 12). Three additional study areas also participated in the workshop.
The next spotted owl demographic meta-analysis is scheduled for January, 2014.

17
Figure 12. Northern Spotted Owl Demography Study Areas in the range of the Owl.
Study areas with asterisks (MAR, WEN, and WSR) were discontinued after the 2003
analysis.
Problems encountered
We were unable to survey on 9 scheduled survey days and/or nights due to inclement
weather, resulting in a loss of 18 person-days of survey. The 2012 average June
temperature in Washington State was the coldest in 22 years (National Climatic Data
Center 2012).
Reduced maintenance and decommission of Forest Service roads continues to reduce
vehicle access. This often necessitates other means of travel (e.g. foot, bicycle, ATV)
to our calling stations, which increases time spent for each survey.

As owl territories have become vacant, we have had to increase our number of
nocturnal visits in order to achieve valid surveys. In addition, surveys done by
cooperating organizations to monitor owl territories in our sample have largely ceased.
The combination of these 2 developments has increased the overall workload for
accomplishing this study. These difficulties are not likely to change in the near future.
Literature cited
Anthony, R. G., E. D. Forsman, A. B. Franklin, D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, G. C.
White, C. J. Schwarz, J. D. Nichols, J. E. Hines, G. S. Olson, S. H. Ackers, L. S.
Andrews, B. L. Biswell, P. C. Carlson, L. V. Diller, K. M. Dugger, K. E. Fehring, T.
L. Fleming, R. P. Gerhardt, S. A. Gremel, R. J. Gutiérrez, P. J. Happe, D. R.
Herter, J. M. Higley, R. B. Horn, L. L. Irwin, P. J. Loschl, J. A. Reid, and S. G.
Sovern. 2006. Status and trends in demography of northern Spotted owls,
1985-2003. Wildlife Monographs 163.
Center For Disease Control (CDC). 2006. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/
Collett, D. (1991), Modeling Binary Data, London: Chapman & Hall
Courtney, S. Pl, J A Blakesley, R E Bigley, M L Cody, J P Dumbacher, R C Fleischer, A
B Franklin, J F Franklin, R J Gutiérrez, J M Marzluff, L Sztukowski. 2004.
Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Sustainable
Ecosystems Institute, Portland, Oregon.
Crozier, M. L., M. E. Seamans, R. J. Gutiérrez , P. J. Loschl, R. B. Horn, S. G. Sovern,
and E. D. Forsman. Does the presence of Barred owls suppress the calling
behavior of spotted owls? Condor 108:760-769.
Forsman, E. D. 1983. Methods and materials for locating and studying Spotted Owls.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-162. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station. 8 pp.
Forsman, E. D., DeStefano, S., Raphael, M. G., and Gutiérrez, R. J., Eds. 1996.
Demography of the northern Spotted Owl. Studies in Avian Biology 17. 122 pp.
Forsman, E.D., R. G. Anthony, K. M. Dugger, E. M. Glenn, A.B. Franklin, G.C. White, C.
J. Schwarz, K. P. Burnham, D. R. Anderson, J. D. Nichols, J. E. Hines, J. B. Lint,
R.J. Davis, S. H. Ackers, L. S. Andrews, B.L. Biswell, P. C. Carlson, L. V. Diller,
S. A.Gremel, D. R. Herter, J.M. Higley, R. B. Horn, J.A. Reid, J. Rockweit, J.
Schaberl, T.J. Snetsinger, and S.G. Sovern. 2011. Population demography of the
northern spotted owl. Studies in Avian Biology 40.
Franklin, A. B., D. R. Anderson, E. D. Forsman, K. P. Burnham and F. W. Wagner.
1996. Methods for collecting and analyzing demographic data on the Northern
Spotted Owl. Studies in Avian Biology 17:12-20.
18

Franklin, A. B., Burnham, K. P., White, G. C., Anthony, R. G., Forsman, E. D., Schwartz,
C., Nichols, J. D., and Hines, J. 1999. Range-wide status and trends in northern
Spotted Owl populations. Unpublished report. 71 pp.
Funk, W. C., E. D. Forsman, M. Johnson, T. D. Mullins, and S. M. Haig. 2009.
Evidence for recent population bottlenecks in northern spotted owls (Strix
occidentalis caurina). Conservation Genetics DOI 10.1007/s10592-009-9946-5.
Haig, S. M., T. D. Mullins, E. D. Forsman, P. W. Trail, and L. Wennerberg. 2004.
Genetic identification of Spotted Owls, Barred Owls, and their hybrids: legal
implications of hybrid identity. Conservation Biology 18: 1347-1357.
Kelly, E. G., E. D. Forsman, and R. G. Anthony. 2003. Are Barred Owls displacing
Spotted Owls? Condor 105:45-53.
Kelly, E. G., and E. D. Forsman. 2004. Recent records of hybridization between Barred
Owls (Strix varia) and Northern Spotted Owls (S. occidentalis caurina). Auk
121:806-810.
Lint, J., Noon, B., Anthony, R., Forsman, E., Raphael, M., Collopy, M., and Starkey, E.
1999. Northern Spotted Owl effectiveness monitoring plan for the Northwest
Forest Plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-440. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 43p.
Millard, J. 2010. Don’t give a hoot! Are we loving these birds to death? The Wild
Phlox 44:4-5
http://www.ncwaudubon.org/Wild_Phlox/2010Phlox/OctPhlox2010.pdf
Olson, G. S., R. G. Anthony, E. D.Forsman, S. H. Ackers, P. J. Loschl, J. A. Reid, K. M.
Dugger, E. M. Glenn, W. J. Ripple. 2005. Modeling of site occupancy dynamics
for Northern Spotted Owls, with emphasis on the effects of Barred Owls. Journal
of Wildlife Management 69:918-932.
Olson, G. S., E. D. Forsman, R. G. Anthony, S. G. Sovern, and B. Biswell. Northern
Spotted Owl site occupancy in eastern Washington: the effects of Barred owls
and landscape pattern. In prep.
Reid, J. R., R. B. Horn, and E. D. Forsman. 1999. Detection rates of Spotted Owls
based on acoustic-lure and live-lure surveys. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 27:986-990.
Soule, M. E., and L. S. Mills. 1998. No need to isolate genetics. Science 282:1658-
1659. doi: 10.1126/science.282.5394.1658
SAS Institute Inc. 2009. Cary, NC, USA.
19

Taylor, A. L., and E. D. Forsman. 1976. Recent range extensions of the Barred owl in
western North America, including the first records for Oregon. Condor 78:560-
561.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U. S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management [USDA and USDI]. 1994. Record of decision for
amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning
documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. 74pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement related to experimental removal of Barred owls
for the conservation benefit of threatened Northern Spotted Owls. Federal
Register 74:65546-65548.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Protocol for surveying proposed
management activities that may impact spotted owls. USDI Fish and Wildlife
Service, Portland, OR. 38 pp.
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2011. GIS data center.
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/ForestHealthEcology/Pages/rp_f
oresthealth.aspx
20

21
Publications and presentations in Fiscal Year 2012
Sovern, S. G., E. D. Forsman, K. M. Dugger, and M. Taylor. Habitat use by Northern
Spotted Owls during natal dispersal. In review.
Sovern, S.G., E. D. Forsman, M. Taylor, and B. L. Biswell. Habitat use and home
range of Northern Spotted Owls on the east slope of the Cascades Mountains,
Washiongton, 1989-1990. In review.
Sovern, S. G., E. D. Forsman, G. S. Olson, B. L. Biswell, M. Taylor, and R. G. Anthony.
Associations between Barred owls, landscape pattern and site occupancy of Northern
Spotted Owls in the eastern Cascades of Washington. In review.
“All about Owls”. “Nature of Night” program, 19 November, 2002, Central Washington
University Center for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Education. A Powerpoint
presentation, owl pellet examples, and a live Great horned owl provided by the Kittitas
Animal Rehabilitation Group.
The Cle Elum Ranger District staff was given weekly updates of our owl surveys and
information as needed in support of District projects.

22
Apppendix 1
Table 1. Number of Spotted owls banded each year on the Cle Elum Study Area, Okanogan-Wenatchee
National forest, Washington, 1989-2011. Total for juveniles includes 2 hybrid spotted x barred owl
hybrids banded in 2009.
Density Study Area
General Study Area
Year Adults (M,F) Subadults (M,F) Juveniles Adults (M,F) Subadults (M,F) Juveniles Total
1989 12 (7,5) 3 (1,2) 10 16 (10,6) 2 (0,2) 10 53
1990 5 (3,2) 2 (1,1) 12 38 (21,17) 4 (2,2) 28 89
1991 5 (4,1) 2 (2,0) 7 20 (11,9) 12 (3,9) 34 80
1992 0 (0,0) 2 (1,1) 16 16 (7,9) 2 (0,2) 60 96
1993 1 (0,1) 1 (1,0) 2 7 (1,6) 4 (1,3) 8 23
1994 0 (0,0) 1 (1,0) 14 4 (2,2) 2 (1,1) 52 73
1995 0 (0,0) 2 (2,0) 8 4 (3,1) 2 (2,0) 23 39
1996 0 (0,0) 1 (0,1) 12 2 (0,2) 0 (0,0) 39 54
1997 0 (0,0) 0 (0,0) 0 4 (2,2) 3 (2,1) 3 10
1998 0 (0,0) 1 (0,1) 9 2 (1,1) 2 (1,1) 43 57
1999 0 (0,0) 1 (0,1) 7 1 (0,1) 1 (1,0) 8 18
2000 0 (0,0) 2 (2,0) 11 1 (1,0) 3 (0,3) 18 35
2001 1 (1,0) 0 (0,0) 9 2 (1,1) 0 (0,0) 15 27
2002 0 (0,0) 0 (0,0) 5 1 (1,0) 1 (1,0) 11 18
2003 0 (0,0) 1 (1,0) 13 5 (3,2) 1 (1,0) 16 36
2004 0 (0,0) 1 (1,0) 5 2 (0,2) 1 (0,1) 14 23
2005 0 (0,0) 0 (0,0) 7 1 (0,1) 1 (1,0) 11 20
2006 0 (0,0) 1 (1,0) 5 1 (0,1) 0 (0,0) 11 18
2007 1 (1,0) 2 (1,1) 3 3 (3,0) 2 (1,1) 11 22
2008 0 (0,0) 1 (0,1) 3 0 (0,0) 0 (0,0) 6 10
2009 0 (0,0) 0 (0,0) 2 3 (1,2) 1 (1,0) 9 15
2010 0 (0,0) 0 (0,0) 2 0 (0,0) 0 (0,0) 9 11
2011 0 (0,0) 0 (0,0) 2 0 (0,0) 1 (0,1) 7 10
2012 0 (0,0) 0 (0,0) 2 0 (0,0) 0 (0,0) 5 6
Total 25 (16,9) 24 (15,9) 166 133 (68,65) 45 (18,27) 451 844

23
Table 2. Survey effort for the Cle Elum Study Area, Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, Washington,
1989-2012.
territories
surveyed to
minimum
protocol 1
territories
surveyed to
protocol 2
new
territories
added
total owls
detected
territories
inhabited 3
hybrid
territories 4
1989 0 19 19 36 19 0
1990 0 46 27 83 43 0
1991 0 71 27 109 59 0
1992 0 82 10 120 64 0
1993 0 80 3 101 54 0
1994 0 87 3 99 53 0
1995 0 86 1 93 51 0
1996 0 81 1 82 46 0
1997 0 86 1 68 40 0
1998 0 87 0 78 44 0
1999 0 82 1 76 45 0
2000 0 82 1 68 39 0
2001 0 80 0 56 33 0
2002 8 75 0 44 26 0
2003 10 75 2 50 28 0
2004 8 77 0 49 26 0
2005 8 77 0 46 26 0
2006 8 77 0 46 29 0
2007 8 77 0 40 23 0
2008 8 75 0 36 26 0
2009 8 75 0 31 22 1
2010 8 75 0 26 18 0
2011 8 75 0 21 11 1
2012 8 75 0 20 13 0
1 Minimum protocol consisted of one visit to the territory.
2 Territories surveyed to protocol as outlined in Lint et al. (1999)
3 A territory was considered inhabited if one owl was detected during the survey period, March-
August
4 Hybrid territories are those inhabited by a pair composed of a Spotted and a Barred owl or by a
spotted owl/barred owl hybrid

Table 3. Reproductive indices of Spotted owls on the Cle Elum Study Area, Okanogan-Wenatchee
National Forest, Washington, 1989-2012.
24
Fecundity of female owls 1
Mean brood size of successful
nests 2
Year n mean se n mean se
1989 11 0.77 0.12 9 1.89 0.11
1990 31 0.66 0.08 23 1.78 0.09
1991 47 0.45 0.07 25 1.68 0.11
1992 49 0.81 0.06 42 1.88 0.09
1993 46 0.11 0.04 6 1.67 0.21
1994 46 0.75 0.08 32 2.16 0.11
1995 41 0.40 0.07 21 1.57 0.11
1996 35 0.76 0.07 30 1.77 0.09
1997 33 0.06 0.04 3 1.33 0.33
1998 36 0.72 0.09 27 1.93 0.13
1999 27 0.30 0.08 10 1.60 0.16
2000 31 0.52 0.08 20 1.60 0.11
2001 27 0.48 0.09 16 1.63 0.13
2002 19 0.37 0.11 9 1.78 0.15
2003 22 0.66 0.10 16 1.81 0.14
2004 23 0.48 0.10 13 1.69 0.13
2005 20 0.50 0.11 11 1.82 0.12
2006 15 0.57 0.12 10 1.70 0.15
2007 17 0.44 0.11 9 1.67 0.17
2008 10 0.45 0.16 5 1.80 0.20
2009 10 0.55 0.16 6 1.83 0.17
2010 8 0.75 0.16 6 2.00 0.00
2011 10 0.55 0.16 6 1.83 0.17
2012 6 0.58 0.16 5 1.40 0.24
Total 620 0.52 0.02 360 1.79 0.03
1 Sample size (n) includes those females checked for reproductive status by
August 31. Fecundity is the number of females fledged per female, assuming a
50:50 sex ratio.
2 Mean brood size of nests that produced at least 1 young, and where the number
of fledged young was determined by August 31

Table 4. Reproductive indices of Spotted owls on the Cle Elum Study Area, Okanogan-Wenatchee
National Forest, Washington, 1989-2012.
proportion (π) of females that nested 1
proportion (π) of nesting
females that fledged young 2
proportion (π ) of all females
that fledged young 3
year n π 95% CI 4 n π 95% CI 4 n π 95% CI 4
1989 8 0.88 0.47 - 1.00 7 1.00 0.59 - 1.00 11 0.82 0.48 - 0.98
1990 20 0.90 0.68 - 0.99 17 0.94 0.71 - 1.00 31 0.74 0.55 - 0.88
1991 34 0.65 0.46 - 0.80 22 0.82 0.60 - 0.95 47 0.53 0.38 - 0.68
1992 47 1.00 0.92 - 1.00 43 0.88 0.75 - 0.96 49 0.86 0.73 - 0.94
1993 41 0.17 0.07 - 0.32 7 0.86 0.42 - 1.00 46 0.13 0.05 - 0.26
1994 40 0.93 0.80 - 0.98 37 0.78 0.62 - 0.90 46 0.70 0.54 - 0.82
1995 35 0.66 0.48 - 0.81 23 0.87 0.66 - 0.97 41 0.51 0.35 - 0.67
1996 34 0.97 0.85 - 1.00 33 0.91 0.76 - 0.98 35 0.86 0.70 - 0.95
1997 27 0.15 0.04 - 0.34 4 0.75 0.19 - 0.99 33 0.09 0.02 - 0.24
1998 34 0.91 0.76 - 0.98 31 0.84 0.66 - 0.95 36 0.75 0.58 - 0.88
1999 20 0.60 0.36 - 0.81 12 0.75 0.43 - 0.95 27 0.37 0.19 - 0.58
2000 27 0.81 0.62 - 0.94 22 0.91 0.71 - 0.99 31 0.65 0.45 - 0.81
2001 23 0.74 0.52 - 0.90 17 0.82 0.57 - 0.96 27 0.59 0.39 - 0.78
2002 17 0.59 0.33 - 0.82 10 0.80 0.44 - 0.97 19 0.47 0.24 - 0.71
2003 20 0.95 0.75 - 1.00 18 0.78 0.52 - 0.94 22 0.73 0.50 - 0.89
2004 20 0.75 0.51 - 0.91 15 0.80 0.52 - 0.96 23 0.57 0.34 - 0.77
2005 19 0.58 0.34 - 0.80 11 0.91 0.59 - 1.00 20 0.55 0.32 - 0.77
2006 13 0.92 0.64 - 1.00 12 0.67 0.35 - 0.90 15 0.67 0.38 - 0.88
2007 16 0.63 0.35 - 0.84 10 0.90 0.55 - 1.00 17 0.53 0.28 - 0.77
2008 6 0.83 0.36 - 1.00 5 0.80 0.28 - 0.99 10 0.50 0.19 - 0.81
2009 6 0.83 0.36 - 1.00 5 1.00 0.48 - 1.00 10 0.60 0.26 0.88
2010 5 1.00 0.48 - 1.00 5 0.80 0.28 - 0.99 8 0.75 0.35 - 0.97
2011 5 0.80 0.28 - 0.99 4 0.75 0.19 - 0.99 10 0.60 0.26 - 0.88
2012 4 1.00 0.40 - 1.00 4 1.0 0.40 - 1.00 6 0.83 0.36 - 0.99
Total 521 0.73 0.69 - 0.77 374 0.85 0.81 - 0.88 620 0.58 0.54 - 0.62
1 Sample size (n) includes females that were checked for nesting status before June 15
2 Sample size (n) includes nesting females that were checked for reproductive status by August 31
3 Sample size (n) includes all females that were checked for reproductive status by August 31. The sample size for this
index is commonly larger than other indices because we often cannot make the required visits to determine nesting
status before the June15 cutoff due to limited access or low response rates for non-nesting females.
4 Exact confidence limits for the binomial proportion using the F distribution, Collett (1991)
25